Should jury system be restored?

last SG · 2006-06-11T22:13:28+00:00

In the news : CNA 2.7.2006: Malaysia is studying restoration of Jury Trial. It is a right move for its judiciary by restoring Jury trial will demonstrate to...

oxford mushroom SG

Friend, do you know how the jury system works? You do not go out and select 'people who have knowledge of the law and have a high level of intellegence and competence'. The idea of the jury is to collect ordinary folks, people on top of the Clapham omnibus (or in our context, the ah sors and ah peks in our SBS buses and MRT trains).

robertteh SG

Yes the old jury might have been constituted of ordinary folks based on certain assumption that jury should be able to reflect the state of fairness, equity or expectations of ordinary folks charged with offence or crimes and weight the motivation of any ordinary citizens accused of crimes.

However when our politicians abolished the jury system essentially they have replaced all the past common folks' assessment of what constitute fairness and expectations of ordinary folk with that of the more educated judges. Whether the judges have been able to place themselves in the shoes of the accused in any judges final assessments based on his own sense of fairness and common man's motivations is already superseded by completely new system alien to the old jury system.

Now our judges are supreme in findings of facts and overriding in interpretation of laws and are clearly highly influenced by political expositions of the politicians which might caused miscarriage of justice especially in political trials.

So if we are to prevent miscarriage of justice we need not go back to the old day of constituting the jury from the ordinary folks found on the omnibus as our politicians have totally superseded that kind of standard test.

Now to be more relevant to evolving a more objective open and accountable judiciary from one that is closely controlled and influenced by the executive, we only need to ensure judicial independence that is all.

We can constitute the modern jury for such purpose so that the new jury if we ever have only need to consist of people who are representative of mainstream views and not necessary those of the ah sors or ah peks who know too little about what is happening.

As long as the jury panel consist of people who are of independence of views and unlikely to be overly influenced by the politicians of the day, that should be sufficient criteria.

I-like-flings(m) SG

who need the jury when we have our always right, knew all and all powerful CJ "protecting" us? Laughing

oxford mushroom SG

We can constitute the modern jury for such purpose so that the new jury if we ever have only need to consist of people who are representative of mainstream views and not necessary those of the ah sors or ah peks who know too little about what is happening.

So a jury composed of an elite of sorts. Who are the ' people who are representative of mainstream views'? Who will select them? How do you know who has 'mainstream views'? Majority of Singaporeans are Chinese non-Muslims. Is that going to be the character of the 'mainstream voew' as well?

Will this selected group of people deemed to be fit for jury service be paid? A trial can lasts for 2-3 weeks, more than a month in some complex cases. You will take away people from jobs without compensation?

The cost of an average high court hearing is about 100k as it is, you want to increase legal costs further?

vito_corleone SG

what you have just said makes me think LKY was right to abolish the jury system, if u get what i mean Laughing that's why i said they "should" instead of they "have selected". there you have it..the flaw of the jury system, will an ah soh understand the difference between murder and manslaughter? d'accord?

vito_corleone SG

that's why we dont have nonsense like the OJ simpson saga. Laughing

oxford mushroom SG

Absolutely, that's why Robert wants an elite group of people with 'mainstream views' to fill the jury bench. Problem is, I don't know who he has in mind.

LazerLordz SG

I believe that we should not place elitism in as a factor if jury selection is done.That would defeat the purpose of a jury of the people.

What should be needed are people without prior convictions, representatives of different races and religions and age groups.

headset SG

I want the Jury system back....

Juditial process in a Democracy should eco the voice of the people.

hisoka SG

HMmz reading thru, it seems that jurying might be beter brought back for selective cases.

murder and such technical cases might be beter left for the judges or skilled personel. but politically link cases might be better undertaken by a jury to convince on fairnes, though problems of how they chose would be at issue Confused

Atobe SG

Originally posted by oxford mushroom:

Absolutely, that's why Robert wants an elite group of people with 'mainstream views' to fill the jury bench. Problem is, I don't know who he has in mind.

Singapore is supposedly a "First World" Country, with Citizens who are educated to "First World" Standards - yet you will not know who amongst the Singapore Community of "First World" Citizens - with "First World" Education - can take on its Citizenship responsibility to be a Jury to judge one's own based on one's shared values in this "First World" ?

Could this inability due to the hollowing out of the Singaporean mind - to be unable to judge for ourselves despite the supposedly superior mind imbued with "First World" education ?

What sorry state of affairs have we come to after 47 years of monolithic rule ?

iveco SG

A jury system may result in fewer people being sent to the gallows and elites getting punishments that fit their crimes. I am sure they would have voted to convict Took Leng How for manslaughter instead of murder. Similarly, the 4 commandoes and the old NKF board may not have gotten off lightly with what they did.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a spike in acquittal rate if the jury were reinstated.

lionnoisy SG

read today 12 june ST.there is a article on jury system.

vito_corleone SG

Originally posted by Atobe:

Singapore is supposedly a "First World" Country, with Citizens who are educated to "First World" Standards - yet you will not know who amongst the Singapore Community of "First World" Citizens - with "First World" Education - can take on its Citizenship responsibility to be a Jury to judge one's own based on one's shared values in this "First World" ?

Could this inability due to the [b]hollowing out of the Singaporean mind - to be unable to judge for ourselves despite the supposedly superior mind imbued with "First World" education ?

What sorry state of affairs have we come to after 47 years of monolithic rule ?

[/b]

no matter how oppressive a government is, if a people truly want freedom and take responsibility into their own hands and be active in politics, they can do so eg. phillipines. if a people are politically apathetic cowards no matter how free an environment they live in they will never lift a finger. IMO singaporeans generally belong to the latter group Laughing

robertteh SG

We all have witnessed how our judiciary has become over the years. It is now playing the second fiddle to the executive resulting in less than objective administration of the justice, equity and fairness in our society.

The influence of the executive over the judiciary is too strong. If Jury system has not been abolished, we might not have witnessed so many political suits with oppositions who are serving the citizens' larger interests being sued in court for innuendos in election speeches.

When our leader is seen to be calling people a "liar unless you sue me to prove that you are not a liar", that is the end of accountability and transparency of the judiciary. Yet our citizens through years of conditionign do not seem to mind or understand this fact.

So Jury should stay for the national purpose of safeguarding such manner of use of political powers to overwhelm anyone.

All other reasons for objecting against the jury's softheartedness or likelihood of intimidation by criminal can be resolved administratively.

If we want to establish a more accountable and transparent system of governance then restoration of jury will be good and one positive step forward.

Atobe SG

With backing of the prestigeous Filippino Catholic Church, which had always had an influence on the catholic political leadership, the Filippinos had an opportunity to show off their Peoples' Power.

The Filippino Catholic Church had also provided the leadership and infrastructure to organise such an uprising to the seeming gross injustice and sheer arrogant display of ugly political power with the assassination of Opposition Leader B. Aquino.

In the Singapore context, the Catholic Church was warned not to dabble in the political arena with the arrest of those accused to be "Marxist Conspirators" from the Singapore Catholic Church.

With the threat of the Internal Security Act at the disposal of the POWER OF ONE, Singaporeans were warned to either openly join the Political System to be participate in the Political Debate, or stay out of Politics completely.

Politics are for Politicians - as claimed by the POWER OF ONE in its attempt to defoliage the ground of any political consciousness that can provide the seedlings of support to any political groundwork by any political challengers.

Such a climate can hardly breed the kind of ground support for political consciousness amongst the Singapore Citizens.

Hopefully, the recent Elections had shown at least there is a national average of 33% of Singaporeans prepared to give their political support to a group of younger and enthusiastic political candidates - who are prepared to stand-up to offer themselves as a Credible Alternative Choice.

oxford mushroom SG

A jury system will not only be expensive and unwieldy, but can result in more miscarriages of justice. As the OJ Simpson and other cases in the US illustrates, often a verdict depends on the racial and religious constitution of the jurors more than the nature of the evidence. I dread to think of the fallout if a majority Chinese jury acquits a Chinese man who appears to have raped a Malay Muslim girl. If the decision was made along racial lines, the judge will find it almost impossible to overturn the decision of the jury. The results can be devastating. Young Singaporeans may not know of the racial riots resulting from a court decision in the Maria Hertogh case:

http://www.answers.com/topic/maria-hertogh-riots

Those in favour of jury trials must be prepared to sacrifice weeks to months without pay for jury duty. That's another sacrifice in addition to National Service, although female as well as male Singaporeans of all ages will be involved.

robertteh SG

Which is worse :

(1) Jury system with a possibility of some cases of miscarriage of justice for corruptions or due to isolated cases of intimidation or racial prejudices on the part of jurors which can be corrected administratively or;

(2) The Judge being the sole party deciding on both laws and facts subjected to influence by the executive. The breakdown of accountability and transparency of governing process is now at stake. In addition, the over-whelming use of political power to sue opposition members is a major concern affecting our ongoing development of cosmopolitan and inclusive society.

From the citizens' standpoint, it will be necessary to rethink the abolition of jury in view of the overwhelming use of political power to serve narrow interest of the governing elites. It is necessary to review whether we should choose: (1) or (2). We should look at the bigger picture and issue if we want ot progress and be fully aware of the past habit of creating worse-case law and order scenario just to frighten citizens into granting the executive more power.

Power should be used sparingly to serve the public good. Unless it is checked by internal processes which are intrinsically objective and accountable, there might be human abuse. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely!!

LazerLordz SG

So, are we going to pimp the Maria Hertogh riots for more partisan gain for another 50 years?

Juries are selected to ensure a fair representation of income level, racial and religious differences too.It is not a hokey-pokey process done amatuerishly.If selected for jury duty, I'd be glad to do my duty.

In any case, my calls for a jury system is for capital crimes.

MobyDog SG

If it for capital crimes, then two things will surface with jury..

1) Depending what they have read or seen in the news, the Accuse would been pronounced guilty even before the jury sits to listen.

2) Even though as I have said that no normal Singaporean would condemn a man to the gallows, but given HuangNa's case. The trail would not last a day... for a death sentence... so it's selective, being that Singapore do have a low extreme violent crimes. However, a drug trafficking.. almost no Druggies will be hung.

Also, note that there are many prisoners who are wrongly jailed for decades to be found innocent in the US... racial profiling is rife... if you're not white in Texas.. you're likely guilty on the lethal injection seat.

It's a bad idea to put in Jury system, and I am slightly irritated to be required to serve my reservist stink for two times this year already and is expected to serve again in September for WTO ... as it is... Contrary to popular believe, my boss isn't too happy with me for it.

« Previous Page Next Page »